Revisional courts will not reappreciate factual findings absent manifest illegality or perversity.

The petitioner challenged an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, directing him to pay Rs. 2,500 per month to respondent no. 2 for the care of their minor daughter, respondent no. 3, from 4 April 2017, and to pay respondent no. 2 a one-time settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in six monthly instalments.

The petitioner disputed that respondent no. 2 was his wife and respondent no. 3 his daughter, alleging that respondent no. 2’s earlier marriage had not been dissolved and that he was not cohabiting with her when the child was born. He also challenged the maintenance amount by reference to his financial circumstances.

The respondents maintained that the Family Court had considered the evidence and the parties’ incomes, and that the petitioner had obtained a decree dissolving his marriage with respondent no. 2.

1. Whether the Family Court’s findings that respondent no. 2 was the petitioner’s wife and respondent no. 3 was his daughter disclosed manifest illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the direction to pay Rs. 2,500 per month for the minor child was excessive in light of the petitioner’s financial circumstances.

The Court applied the settled principle governing revisional jurisdiction: a revisional court does not ordinarily reappreciate facts or act as an appellate court; interference with factual findings is warranted only where there is manifest illegality or perversity in the appreciation of evidence or the resulting findings.

The Court also recognised a parent’s statutory duty and pious obligation to maintain a minor daughter, and considered the prevailing minimum wages in Bihar when assessing whether the maintenance award was excessive. The judgment cited no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Court found no basis to revisit the Family Court’s factual findings because it had considered the petitioner’s contentions and reached its conclusions after discussing the relevant aspects of the case. The petitioner’s own act of obtaining a decree dissolving his marriage with respondent no. 2 contradicted his denial that she was his wife; the Court further accepted the Family Court’s finding that respondent no. 3 was born during the marriage and was the petitioner’s daughter.

As to the amount, the Court considered Rs. 2,500 per month modest in light of the petitioner’s duty to maintain his minor child and prevailing minimum wages in Bihar.

The revision petition was dismissed; the directions for monthly maintenance and payment of the one-time settlement amount remained in force.